In the evolving universe of multidistrict litigation, begun in the antitrust cases against major electronics manufacturers in the 1960s, federal courts have developed varying approaches to fulfilling their responsibilities to achieve efficiency and reduce costs. This process continues today almost 60 years since the creation of the first MDL. Read the Law360 article by Alan Klein and William R. Heaston on the Duane Morris website.
Court’s Decision Affects Evidence Involving Industry & Gov’t Standards
By Alan Klein, Duane Morris LLP
A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision has reaffirmed the applicability of strict liability standards under Restatement Second’s §402(a) in products liability cases filed in the State, and has barred evidence of compliance with industry or governmental standards to demonstrate that a product was safe and not defective. While clarifying these issues for trial courts and litigants, the Court’s plurality decision creates a potential unbalanced playing field for defendant manufacturers relying upon such standards in the design of their products.
Continue reading “Court’s Decision Affects Evidence Involving Industry & Gov’t Standards”
Pa. Supreme Court Rules on Proper Venue Standards
By Alan Klein and Ethan Feldman
In Hangey v. Husqvarna, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that the percentage of a corporate defendant’s total revenue generated from a forum county alone is insufficient to support the proposition that a defendant does not “regularly conduct business” in the county when analyzing whether a lawsuit’s venue is proper. This long awaited decision provides much needed clarity for trial courts that previously wrestled with the question of how much business must a defendant have in the forum for venue to attach. Continue reading “Pa. Supreme Court Rules on Proper Venue Standards”
FDA Issues New Nitrosamine Impurities Guidance
By Alan Klein, Patrick Gallagher and Michael Fox
On August 4, 2023, the FDA issued a new Guidance to the pharmaceutical industry relating to large molecule drugs left unaddressed in its earlier nitrosamine Guidance publications. (Access the complete Guidance or the abbreviated version.)
Reacting to considerable input from the pharmaceutical industry, both brand and generic, following the agency’s Federal Register request for and receipt of extensive comments on these issues, including scientific data furnished to the agency by NDA and ANDA sponsors over the past year and a half, FDA has now provided drug manufacturers with critical guidelines for conforming their products to what the agency has determined to be safe nitrosamine exposure limits for patients. This comes on the heels of setting similar exposure limits for these products late last month by the European Union’s chief drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency. In its current Guideline, FDA has ranked impacted prescription drugs into 5 categories depending upon their carcinogenic potency, with “1” being the most potent, and “5” the least. Instructing the industry on their responsibility to minimize or eliminate nitrosamine impurities in their products to the extent feasible, the agency has extended the timeline for this task to August 2025, recognizing the complexity of this process and the need to avoid recalls and market disruptions of widely prescribed and important medications.
Pa. Supreme Court Can Finally Set Proper Venue Standards
In March, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hangey v. Husqvarna on the standards governing venue in a product liability case.
The court’s decision, expected by the end of the year, may provide important guidance on just how much business a corporate defendant must undertake in a plaintiff’s chosen forum for venue to attach.
This article will describe the case on appeal, the venue issues it raises and the precedential context in which it finds itself. We will also suggest a few important takeaways as trial courts and litigants await the disposition of the appeal.
To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris attorneys Alan Klein and Ethan Feldman, please visit the firm website.
Supreme Court Rules That Judges, Not Juries, Must Decide Preemption of Failure-to-Warn Claims
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a rare unanimous decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, et al., holding that judges, not juries, must decide whether state law failure-to-warn claims against brand-name drug manufacturers are preempted by the FDA’s labeling regulations. In so holding, the Court further clarified the preemption standard set forth in an earlier decision, Wyeth v. Levine, concluding that such claims are preempted where a drug manufacturer can show “that it fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve changing the drug’s label to include that warning.”
Should Juries Try To Predict FDA Drug Labeling Decisions?
On June 28, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted for review Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, an appeal from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation.[1] At the marrow of the high court’s review lie the thorny questions of whether a state law failure-to-warn claim is preempted where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rejected a drug manufacturer’s proposed label warning about the health risks at issue, and, in making this determination, whether a jury, as opposed to the trial court, may be asked to look beyond the FDA’s rejection and decide if the FDA would have approved a differently worded warning had it been proposed by the manufacturer.
While the issue is a relatively narrow one, the Supreme Court’s analysis promises to shape the way courts around the country decide whether and how the decisions of regulatory agencies should be interpreted ― and here, predicted ― by juries.
How Did We Get Here?
The Fosamax litigation began in 2011, when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated several thousand lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The common question raised by the plaintiffs was whether their use of Fosamax, a drug developed and manufactured by Merck for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis, led to femur fractures and similar bone injuries, and further, whether Merck had properly warned of these potential risks.
To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris attorneys Alan Klein and Matthew Decker, please visit the Duane Morris website.